asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on the discussions which have taken place with the British authorities in relation to the discharges from Sellafield nuclear plant since the recent announcement by Britain that discharges from that plant would be reduced further; and if he has insisted that discharge will be reduced to nil without further delay.

The Irish Government are in regular contact with the United Kingdom authorities on all matters relating to the Sellafield plant and in particular in regard to the discharge reduction programme. One of the most important channels of communication in this area is the Ireland/United Kingdom contact group which met in November of last year. The next meeting of the contact group is planned to take place early this year.

As the Deputy is no doubt aware, it is the view of the Government that discharges from the Sellafield plant to the Irish Sea should be discontinued as soon as practicable, taking account of best available technology and in the meantime should be reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably achievable. At the last meeting of the Ireland/United Kingdom contract group we strongly re-affirmed our view on this matter.

At that meeting the United Kingdom authorities informed us of the programme of measures currently being taken at Sellafield to minimise the discharges to the Irish Sea. These measures were outlined recently in a statement made by Mr. Jenkin, Secretary of State for the Environment, to the House of Commons on 18 December 1984. They include the commissioning of a new effluent treatment plant by mid-1985, the introduction of a salt evaporator to reduce discharges arising from the reprocessing plant and the construction of a major new treatment plant to be in operation by 1991. In addition a major revision of the current discharge limits is planned for later this year. The introduction of short term discharge limits will have the effect of reducing the quantities which can be discharged at any one time as well as limiting the annual amount of discharge permitted.

We will continue to be active in insisting that the discharges should be reduced to levels which are consistent with the best available technology with the objective of their ultimate elimination.

From the contents of the reply it seems that the British Government are determined to continue their programme of discharging into the Irish Sea and have no intention of reducing the discharge to zero.

A question, please.

Under the terms of reference of the Paris Convention is the Minister considering opening negotiations with Britain in a different forum and will he insist on our rights under the terms of reference of the Paris Convention?

The Deputy can be assured that the matter is held by me to have a high priority. We shall continue to make our views known at the Paris Convention meeting and within the EC.

Would the Minister tell the House if he has any information about the progress of the prosecution which the British Director of Public Prosecutions indicated he will take against the Sellafield authorities?

I do not have the information required. I was pleased to note that prosecutions had been taken and I hope they will be processed in the normal way. We are extremely anxious to ensure that management at the plant is of the highest level and we would be gravely concerned if there were further leaks. I shall inquire as to the present state of proceedings for Deputy Haughey and when I have the information I will contact him.

Does the Minister agree that the British Government have abandoned their policy to reduce discharges to zero and have started a campaign of press releases in this country to convince people that there is no danger from the Sellafield plant as evidence in advertisements in our national papers in December?

That seems to be argument.

The advertisements in the Irish newspapers did not impress me and seemed to be an admission of past guilt by the British Government. I am aware of the long term plans and we shall continue to impress on the British authorities that we wish to see discharges stopped. Until that is achieved, we shall continue to press for discharges to be as low as is reasonably attainable.

Should we insist on a deadline by which discharges are reduced to zero?

We would be very happy to see discharges from the plant stopped immediately. Unfortunately, it is not within our power to do so. However, we shall continue to press for cessation of discharges at the convention and within the EC forum as well as directly with the British Government.

Did I hear aright? Will those discharges not cease finally until 1991? If that is so, does the Minister not consider that that is an outrageous situation? If the authorities accept that discharges should be eliminated by any date, they are thereby admitting that they are harmful, damaging and detrimental to public health and that they should be ceased straight away. I am very glad that the Minister now acknowledges that the British Director of Public Prosecutions is right in taking a case in the British courts against these people because, when I suggested that that should happen——

A question, please, Deputy.

I am coming to my question. When I suggested that that should happen the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Kavanagh, immediately rushed into the newspapers to say that I was being alarmist and foolish. Fortunately, the British Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently bore me out and that leads me to my question. If the British Director of Public Prosecutions can bring an action against these people— some people might call them criminals— in charge of Sellafield, is there any court, European or international, in which we could prosecute them for their criminal negligence in regard to these discharges into the Irish Sea?

Many complaints made to my Department about discharges from Sellafield are alarmist in principle and Deputy Haughey is again indulging in alarmist questioning. I want to assure the House——

Is Deputy Allen not alarmist?

There is no danger to people living in Ireland from discharges from Sellafield. I explained clearly to the House that we are very concerned that there should be nothing less than top class management at Sellafield. I did not at any stage say that the policy of the British Government was to cease discharges from Sellafield — that is a figment of Deputy Haughey's imagination. We are seeking to have discharges from Sellafield reduced to zero and we shall continue to press for that. As regards the possibility of taking a law case in a forum other than in the British courts, I will have that matter examined and let the Deputy know.

Deputy Haughey rose.

I cannot allow another supplementary.

On a point of order, are you accepting that the Minister is entitled to call questions by me alarmist when he does not attribute any such motives to a Fine Gael backbencher who is asking questions along exactly the same lines?

I did not call anyone a criminal.

Is there nothing discriminatory in the Minister's reply?

The Chair is not responsible for answers given by the Minister.

Will the Minister distinguish between eliminating discharges and reducing them to zero? What exactly is the difference?

None, really.

Thank you.

Eliminating discharges means there will be no discharges whatsoever. Reducing discharges to zero means that the radiation in the discharges would be reduced to zero.

May I ask a question?

No. I do not want to start off on the wrong foot but I cannot allow any more questions.

It is just one, simple supplementary question.

No, I am sorry I will not allow it.

It would be helpful to the Minister.

No.